Is Training to Failure Actually More Fatiguing?

[@vikoccult7494]

The real question is if the rir sets you need to do additionally to compensate for hypertrophic stimulus compared to failure training is more or less fatiguing.

[@SLouiss]

I feel like it depends: failing a rep on bench because your left tricep couldn’t lock out and a spotter helps you rack the bar isn’t as fatiguing as failing in a heavy, all out nose bleed set of low bar squats where you really grind but still don’t get the rep & get pinned down to the rack

[@liamhutch89]

I've trained close to failure for years. After recently watching your videos which describe low RPE training as potentially being preferable for strength outcomes I've switched to lower RPE's (i'm a rock climber and hypertrophy is generally undesirable). Now i'm confused.

[@datadrivenstrength]

Hi Liam, thanks for the comment! Ultimately, you're pointing out an important distinction between the way fatigue should be viewed for hypertrophy vs. strength. The key difference here is how much performance (i.e., how close your current capacity is relative to your maximum possible capacity) matters for strength and hypertrophy. For hypertrophy, there is an extremely wide range of "acceptable" performance. We see this across the literature in different experimental designs where performance is artificially harmed, yet muscle growth is unaffected - one example is drop sets. Strength, on the other hand, is strongly dependent on our performance, as thats literally the adaptation we're training for. Thus, any "fatigue" must be viewed for any inherent detriments to the adaptations but also in that it limits our training specificity. This is typically why for strength, we learn on the side of being aggressive with regards to fatigue management (i.e. sparing fatigue where we can) - whereas for hypertrophy we are comfortable being a bit more conservative (i.e., fatigue accumulation isn't a huge concern). Let us know if that helps clear things up!

[@liamhutch89]

​@@datadrivenstrength Thanks for taking the time to reply. Taking weighted pull ups as an example, for years I've been performing 3-4 sets of around 3-5 reps at RPE 9-10. After reading a lot of your work, I've switched up my program so that i'm doing 8 sets of 1-2 at RPE 5-6. I was hoping this would allow for similar strength gains whilst reducing fatigue and therefore the impact on my actual climbing practice, which heavily involves the pulling muscles. This latest video suggests that in people who have adapted to high RPE's, those higher RPE's might not be significantly more fatiguing over time. Does this mean that I might not see much change from the now lower RPE's? I suppose I will find out.

[@datadrivenstrength]

I think your idea here is perfectly reasonable. Your task performance of interest benefits most (from what it sounds like) from increased strength at a fixed body weight. This is a perfect application for some of the "lower fatigue" strategies in which most of your fatigue budget can be spend on your task (i.e., climbing) performance. So I think what you're doing makes sense and doesn't contradict whats in this video! Strength and hypertrophy are different cases and most of what we discuss in this video is in the context of training for muscle growth where the conversation around fatigue is a bit different than strength!@@liamhutch89

[@bigbobabc123]

@@liamhutch89if you haven’t progressed reps in year, you’re doing something wrong.

[@SchmittsPeter]

What I would like to see next? I heared rumours about a volume meta analysis being conducted here somewhere .... . Is there any chance you know something about that?